Why NOT to use damage resistance for armor...

[Darthor]

We reworked many parts of the system so that we could have DR armor.

We started with the grim-n-gritty system (excellent) and went from there. One thing we did to specificaly address the issue of higher BAB not being worth much if most targets were not getting much of an AC (we called it defense) was we changed what made a critical hit. It required 12 over the AC. Weapons with an increased crit threat range reduced this requirement by one pt for each pt of increased crit threat range. So a scimitar weilder crited by getting an attack score of 10 over her target AC. No need to confirm the crit, its automatic.

This ended up having all sorts of useful effects (just flat out made having a good attack bonus rock). Trip someone to get +4 to hit them = more critical hits!

We used a wound pt/vitiality pt system. We handled crit damage a little differently as well (so tripple damage wouldn't just kill someone flat out).

Str Bonus no longer translated into +1 to dmg and "to hit". Instead it was +.5 str bonus to hit (rounded up) and +1 to dmg.

We had a class based bonus to AC (Defense) based on .5 BAB rounded up + .5 reflex save rounded up.

Everyone loved the system and we all felt it added alot. Problem was it slowed things down at first (mostly went away) but also it made DMing a little more of a chore because CRs changed using the system (specially for big critters). We eventually abondoned the sytem when we switched DMs. The new DM loved it and tried it, but the extra work it created was too much.

 

[Beholder Bob]

Plate mail clad hero gains 0 DR but full AC – he wades into battle expecting his armor to protect him, virtually ignoring the attacks. A hit that gets past hits a weak point, transferring the damage straight through (damn joints!)

Plate mail clad hero gains # DR by blocking attacks with the stronger parts of his armor, shoving his shoulder in the way, blocking with his forearm, etc. Sacrifice 1 AC = DR. Counts as either a) move action –against all foes b) attack action against 1 foe per attack given up. You lose AC because you are putting your better armored points up against swung attacks - you dodge what you can, but what you can't you intentionaly block. DR <= AC bonus for armor type.

Ignore mechanic for DR when you do not wish to slow the game down, use DR when your life depends on it.

An idea.

 

[jaldaen]

I wish WotC had gone a different route with armor in D&D... such as a mixture of the AC and DR concepts for armor...

Instead of the standard assumption that a character is going for "weakspots" in an enemy's armor it should be assumed that the character is just trying to "hit" his opponent...

If you are just trying to hit your opponent then your opponent uses his armor's DR rating instead of its AC bonus (with the damage that is being reduced perhaps turning it into nonlethal damage depending on the armor type: light, medium, or heavy)... this would mean that those with high damage weapons might just choose to "swing away" at their enemy and hope to get some good damage rolls that will overwhelm the opponent's DR.

If however you want to avoid the DR than you would attack the "weakspots" in you opponent's armor and thus the opponent would use his AC bonus instead of his DR rating... this would mean that those who have weapons with low damage ratings would probably "target" their attacks and hope for a good attack roll to drive home their point (pun fully intended ;-)

I think this would be a great compromise, but I've been known to be wrong before ;-)

My 2 Cents,
Joseph Miller
PP Wordsmith (Monsternomicon)
Mongoose Freelancer (EA: Illusionism/Familiars, SG to Derro, etc...)

 

[Kobold Avenger]

But, in a damage reduction system, the high level of DND hit points does not work as well. So, one way to implement a damage reduction system is to also drastically decrease hit points. This also has the advantage of allowing a low level Fighter with a dagger to seriously damage a high level Wizard with no protections up yet. Of course, then you would have to change a lot of spells and monster attacks so that they did not do mega-damage either, so this is not the best of solutions.

The main mechanic I have in response to D&D hit points is the damage threshold that's similar to D20 Modern's. If you take more damage than your threshold which is constitution + modifiers (Toughness feat adds +3) you must make a fort save DC 15 or be staggered. If you take twice that amount you must make a fort save or be reduced to -1 HP if failed, or are staggered if successful. The fort save DC is also +1 for every 10 points above it. And there are feats which can force a fort save against dying if just the threshold is breached. The change from D20 modern was to take into account sneak attacks and higher caster levels which can inflict more damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

The main mechanic I have in response to D&D hit points is the damage threshold that's similar to D20 Modern's. If you take more damage than your threshold which is constitution + modifiers (Toughness feat adds +3) you must make a fort save DC 15 or be staggered. If you take twice that amount you must make a fort save or be reduced to -1 HP if failed, or are staggered if successful. The fort save DC is also +1 for every 10 points above it. And there are feats which can force a fort save against dying if just the threshold is breached. The change from D20 modern was to take into account sneak attacks and higher caster levels which can inflict more damage.

I use a similar, but much more frequent system:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?t=68478

 

[Al'Kelhar]

See my comments on this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=31014

The D&D combat system is very abstract, but it is inherently simple. It doesn't purport to be realistic (and why should it - we're dealing with dragons and walking dead things!). Tinker with fundamental things like AC, and you'd better be prepared to make fundamental changes to other parts of the system. I commend those who are attempting to do so. I congratulate those who can make a "realistic" combat system which is as simple to use as D&D's abstract and unrealistic system.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Plane Sailing]

The D&D combat system is very abstract, but it is inherently simple. It doesn't purport to be realistic (and why should it - we're dealing with dragons and walking dead things!).

That is an irrelevant observation really Runequest (for example) appeared in the late 70's, had dragons and walking dead things - and an extremely nice combat system. Strangely it had hit locations, armour as DR, parries... yet runs at least as quickly as a 3e melee.

Of course, we could all go back to playing RQ But we don't want to... and we would like to find a happy middle ground between standard D&D (too abstract for the taste of many) and rewriting everything (too much work, distances us from available material).

 

[timfire]

Posted by jaldaen
"I wish WotC had gone a different route with armor in D&D... such as a mixture of the AC and DR concepts for armor... "

A few people have mentioned mixing AC and DR for armor. But my thought is that that is uneccessary, either go with all AC or all DR.

If the thought is giving DR armor a deflection mechanic (ie making you harder to hit, aka AC), then I think DR already covers that. If you have a DR of 5 and the attack hits for 3 (ie, 0 damage), who's to say the blow was "cushioned" and not "deflected away?" DR just switches the deflection concept away from the attack roll and attaches it to the damage roll.

But maybe people have another reason I'm just not seeing...

--timfire

 

[jaldaen]

But maybe people have another reason I'm just not seeing...

--timfire

The main reason for the dual stated armor is to allow both high damage and low damage weapons the ability to be effective against any armor type... as low damage weapon (such as daggers) weilders would choose to attack the weak points of an opponent's AC (as is from my understanding a historic use of such weapons), whereas those with high damage weapons and the strength to use them would likely use their weapons to "cleave through" or "bash in" an opponent's armor.

A GM might decide that only "finessable" weapons can be used to attack "weak spots" (i.e. use AC instead of DR) in an opponent's armor as my understanding of such weapons is that was their use in battle.

I may be wrong, but that is the reason I would like to see such a dual stated armor system to allow all weapons and styles of fighting to be useful against all armor types... after all I think an unarmed warrior (i.e. martial artist) should be able to damage a breastplated warrior without worrying about DR (by going for weak spots in the armor) and I think that two full plated warriors should be able to hit each other with their swords and do damage rather than the current system where you can hit an opponent's AC, but have no chance of effect... being hit with weapons (even practice ones) from my experience is not an unnoticable event. ;-)

That's My Bit,
Joseph

 

[Azlan]

What good is the Fighter's +20 to hit, if the AC of opponents always stays low, and the damage resistance goes up instead.

That's easy to answer. The fighter uses Power Attack, thus taking an attack (i.e. "to hit") penalty in order to deal out more damage and get past his opponent's armor DR.